Is anyone else running into coaches and teams who do not take the word of certified refs posting officially released information on public forums as WFTDA Rules information.

In a sport where it is for skaters by skaters. The rules are set by the skaters [charter leagues] and the refs can only recite what they have been told, we [refs] have no actual authority. The rules do. To the skaters the rules are the ones published by WFTDA.

Now as a non-affiliated referee who is just trying to do the best by their skaters and teams I often forward links to this kind of information as widely as I can to try and reduce the impact of the refs changing the way they make calls based on non published information.

When WFTDA published things like Clarification or Q&As they did so on their hosted site and it is parallel to the rules. Even then I have had difficulty convincing some coaches skaters and even officials that this information is equivalent to RULES published by the WFTDA.

So when a post that changes the way calls are made is released unofficially but used in bouts it is guaranteed to cause unneeded OTOs, misunderstandings and even lose refs the opportunity to officiate at some leagues.

I'm certain I am not alone in this, but the truth is I love reffing and by straining the relationship between me and the leagues I have within a 3 hour drive means risking my entire ability to do what I love.

I am frustrated [I'm sure it shows] as I feel like this would not take much for the WFTDA to publish these to the publications page or add them to the Casebook. *Heck, I'd volunteer to do it myself if they would let me, write the draft submit it and publish it* It would fix the issue and I don't seem to understand why it would better for them to jst have this information posted randomly about the internet if it is an official response.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 05:38:33 pm by llama of death »

Logged

I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

Hi Llama. I had previously held a similar thought- if it isn't "published" then how can it be considered "official?"

The thing that I came to understand is that it is published - in the WFTDA forums. Instead of going through the additional work of publishing on the WFTDA site or other updates, sometimes the Rules committee simply makes it not subject to the NDA - making it free to share.

For example, the first line of Smasher's communication on Ceding tells us that.

Quote

This post was made on the WFTDA Forums by the Rules committee, and can be considered binding. It is not subject to the WFTDA NDA, and may be shared freely.

The same post later showed up on our league's internal officiating boards, and I'm sure it has made its way to the various rules discussion groups online.

I agree that it would be better/easier/more efficient if there were a thing on wftda.com or wftda.org to point to when these things come out. Until then, any WFTDA coach and/or team who won't take my word for it is invited to check the WFTDA boards. Any team without access to the WFTDA boards is can check someone who does if they want WFTDA information that is not subject to the NDA.

My personal understanding is that the postings by Rules on the WFTDA forums are an attempt to get information out more quickly. Most if not all of this information will likely eventually be incorporated into official publications, such as the casebook or the wftda.com website.

But putting out information through those channels does take time. I believe Rules decided it would be better to get the information out in a more expedient way than to wait for a process which would be visible to everyone.

Bear in mind - things like that FAQ on ceding are *not* intended to be changes to the rules - they're just clarifications of how we should be interpreting what is already in there.

Hi Llama. I had previously held a similar thought- if it isn't "published" then how can it be considered "official?"

The thing that I came to understand is that it is published - in the WFTDA forums. Instead of going through the additional work of publishing on the WFTDA site or other updates, sometimes the Rules committee simply makes it not subject to the NDA - making it free to share.

For example, the first line of Smasher's communication on Ceding tells us that.

Quote

This post was made on the WFTDA Forums by the Rules committee, and can be considered binding. It is not subject to the WFTDA NDA, and may be shared freely.

The same post later showed up on our league's internal officiating boards, and I'm sure it has made its way to the various rules discussion groups online.

I agree that it would be better/easier/more efficient if there were a thing on wftda.com or wftda.org to point to when these things come out. Until then, any WFTDA coach and/or team who won't take my word for it is invited to check the WFTDA boards. Any team without access to the WFTDA boards is can check someone who does if they want WFTDA information that is not subject to the NDA.

While this is useful for charter and apprentice leagues, it is completely unacceptable to majority of leagues playing WFTDA rules. Therein lies the problem.

Logged

I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

Bear in mind - things like that FAQ on ceding are *not* intended to be changes to the rules - they're just clarifications of how we should be interpreting what is already in there.

While the cutting FAQ does not change the rules the unpublished casebook file posted on reporting to the box through the middle of the track IS a change to the literal reading of the rules which currently makes no mention of shortening the distance to the box as a penalty trigger.

I am literally having to call that penalty multiple times a game even for teams that "know the rules" and those I have sent a link to this "publicly available information."

Furthermore, while they may or may not change the rules they do change the way that I as a ref am expected by WFTDA to call the penalties. I am being forced to choose between reffing by guidelines the players have limited or no access to, or choosing to be a "bad ref" by ignoring these "released rulings" until a time at which the players and coaches have direct access to the same information without having to hunt for it.

In the end I am personally not offended by WFTDA's choices here, I understand that authoring editing and posting items to existing pages can be exhaustive. [As I have mentioned before I would be willing to volunteer my time to do so to fix these kind of issues] I am vexed by the complaints by us non-affiliated players and officials with a mirrad of complaints about WFTDA. I am further vexed when I perceive that people like me who want to help fix issues and are willing to put in real time to help but can't seem to find traction to do so.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 06:34:37 pm by llama of death »

Logged

I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.

All I can say to this is that if a league wants the most current information, or a voice in WFTDA policies or procedures, they need to become WFTDA affiliated. While I suspect it is certainly a point of pride for WFTDA that everyone uses their rules, the fact of the matter is that they are written for and by the dues paying member leagues of the organization. As such, that's who gets the most current information, and that's who has input into changes.

All I can say to this is that if a league wants the most current information, or a voice in WFTDA policies or procedures, they need to become WFTDA affiliated. While I suspect it is certainly a point of pride for WFTDA that everyone uses their rules, the fact of the matter is that they are written for and by the dues paying member leagues of the organization. As such, that's who gets the most current information, and that's who has input into changes.

1) Our [non affiliated skaters] complaint has little to do with having input. Little to nothing in fact.

2) You imply that because we don't want a vote in policy, nor to be forced to play in regulation or sanction games against teams we stand zero chance of beating, and don't want to go through the constant paperwork to keep their dues and filing status up to date that we deserve a big FU and middle finger.

All we want is to play the game as WFTDA intends it be played. In my case to ref the game as it is intended to be refed. I CANNOT do so with an incomplete ruleset, nor can I do so if every time I make a call leagues are forced to second guess my ability to ref the game due to a lack of access to basic information like the RULES.

We want derby to grow and not be stifle? DON'T brush of skaters and refs who buy your merch, attend your games, worship your skaters and only want to play a game by the same complete set of rules. Do not give your fan base the middle finger.

Now, I realize Adam you do not speak for WFTDA on this. But this is not a matter of a few skaters wining about not liking how the rules are written, nor about wanting to change the way things are done. It is about not making a game out of elitism, which is exactly what your post is, a middle finger to me, my leagues, my friends and the derby community as a whole.

Logged

I play devils advocate a lot, it is always because I desire a complete understanding of the rule/scenario. I do make changes to my reffing often as a direct result of discussions resulting in a consensus. Particularly if it is contrary to my previous understanding.